A few quick thoughts on culture. Just this week, I wrote about how Large Langauge Models (LLMs) are powerful models of culture, for good and bad. Culture has been a bit of an obsession of mine, partly because I think that the failures of South Africa have been approached by both liberals and progressives in lots of books, papers and so forth without nailing the origin of the problem.
Liberals and progressives tend to ignore the influence of culture on politics and society, which is a particularly acute mistake to make in the case of South Africa. I'll delve into why I say that more on another occasion.
But now I want to highlight a report about the cultural dimension of US politics from the Roosevelt Institute, which I came across this week. It’s really interesting because it articulates many of the hunches I have about what is wrong with today’s politics.
It deals with the idea that the left, particularly in the US, has successfully started grappling with neoliberalism's failure in policy terms. Now we're thinking of Biden's raft of legislative and policy measures that aim to increase the income of people on the lower rungs of society, bring manufacturing back to the US, and so forth. Yet, we see how the right keeps being extremely successful and salient in the people's lives that these policies are designed to help. Why is this so?
The report argues that the right has cultural arguments that address deeper needs than the superficial economic ones and that the left doesn't have a cultural response in return. The report points out that neoliberalism itself, although an economic project, had a cultural dimension.
The culture of neoliberalism
This cultural dimension of neoliberalism encompasses elements such as extreme individualism and grind culture, which promotes the idea that if you work hard enough, you'll reach the top and shame those who don't as failures. It also includes the pervasive belief adopted, especially on the left, that we have the freedom to make choices in life and direct not only our own destinies but also design our own identities, including that where we live is merely a lifestyle choice. And, of course, all this is underpinned by the neoliberal idea that free markets are the solution to all our problems.
The symptoms of the failure of neoliberalism
Today, the economic ideas behind neoliberalism are called into question. However, the results of this failure are not only economic. What are the symptoms of this failure of neoliberalism on a social and cultural level? Well, the article mentions the mounting despair and the widespread insecurity people feel financially, physically and for their communities. Widespread overwork, the lack of agency many experience with respect to changing their own lives (let alone society), social isolation, drug abuse, the increase in suicides, and so forth. These are all symptoms of neo-liberalism failing to deliver its promise for most people.
The report lists several reactions to these failures of neoliberalism, which they have usefully organised into archetypes, though there may be considerable overlap between them for many people.
Archetypes of reactions to the failure of neoliberalism
First, there are the Strivers, the few Mark Andreessen’s of the world - and many others who are just about successful, perhaps because they managed to get on the property ladder somehow — or still hope they can make it. They are the people who feel they have, or still need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. The Strivers are prone to wellness and self-help culture. It’s the appropriate individualistic response to the demands of neoliberal society by those who have taken it to heart.
The Strivers are prone to wellness and self-help culture. It’s the appropriate individualistic response to the demands of neoliberal society by those who have taken it to heart.
Second, there are the Innovators. This is an archetype I didn't quite get at first when I looked at the report. They’re not talking about entrepreneurs here. It's the people who innovate new community-centred arrangements that satisfy their desire for connection. I can think of the LGBQT community’s “found family” or many charismatic churches’ “cell groups”, collective living projects and people creating alternative moral orders and identities, for example, the plethora of sex-positive and other events and communities you see nowadays. I’ll admit it is something that I've been thinking a bit about: creating community.
Then there are the Dropouts, the people who escape into destructive or mind-altering drugs or look for other ways of withdrawing to private worlds. People who stop reading the news and disconnect from the debates in society can also fall into this category.
Lastly, there is the fourth group, the Rebels, who rebel against the failures of neoliberalism. This has come from both the left and the right, but more successfully and sustainably on the right, with the MAGA movement being a prime example.
Scratching cultural itches
So why has the right been more successful? Well, partly because they've not only scratched cultural itches, but they are also offering a soothing balm, not just economic policy ones. We can point to diverse figures and movements on the right, such as Jordan Peterson, QAnon, the MAGA movement itself, Russell Brand in the UK, and Meloni in Italy. Quite diverse, but these individuals and movements have adopted a culture-first orientation.
Another useful dimension in the report is that the Roosevedt Institute articulates five elements that are creating what they call "tides of longing", as a response to five dysfunctions of neoliberalism.
Tides of longing
The first is a longing for community in response to detachment and isolation. The second is safety in response to economic and other insecurity. A third is the desire for agency or control over our lives because of an uneven distribution of power. I think this category is also reflected in the massive differences in status in contemporary society.
The fourth element is the need to understand what is going on in the face of rapid and constant change. Hello, conspiracy theories! Also included here is the institutional failures that we are seeing, which are not helped by the rapid technological change we are going through. I’d argue that the need here is not only for understanding but for new or invigorated institutions which people feel they can trust. Finally, they argue there's a need to feel better because of a world that often causes unease.
What could a left cultural project look like?
After reading it, the big question for me is this: Can the left deliver an alternative cultural vision(s) that addresses these issues? This is no easy task, as it requires grappling with complex issues such as the role of religion and spirituality, the nature of community and identity, the significance of place and location, and rebuilding trust and institutions.
The left's tendency to prioritize rationality and reason, along with their scepticism towards the concept of the nation and their preference for self-actualization and niche identities, may further hinder their ability to connect with wider groups of people on a deeper emotional level.
Additionally, the cosmopolitan worldview often espoused by the left, which downplays the importance of borders and local communities but instead values disparate social networks, further complicates their efforts to address people's longing for a sense of belonging and connection to place.
As we navigate the post-neoliberal landscape, the left and progressives must engage with these cultural questions and develop a compelling vision that speaks to people's fundamental needs and desires. Only by understanding human needs that can not be satisfied by material things alone can we hope to build a more equitable, fulfilling, and resilient society.
Could it be that nationalism and fascism are more comforting (from a cultural perspective?). I'm not sure that culture can be leveraged, used as a weapon etc....